XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: demi@moore.net
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Brent
wrote:
>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:44:30 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-02-17, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>>> The free market can't produce FREE roads but they could make
>>>> standardized ones. The biggest problem I see with free market roads
>>>> is if they are truly free market then you have lost your freedom to
>>>> travel "freely" in the non-economic sense. Ultimately you would not
>>>> be able to leave your house without paying for the privilege. The
>>>> libertarians call that the perfect world.
>>>
>>>As opposed to government roads that are created with magic and instead
>>>of resources taken from the population? Or is it that you want to
>>>arrange things by the political process so that those people over there
>>>pay for the roads while you get to use them for free?
>>>
>>>As to freedom to travel, how exactly do we have that by the political
>>>process? The govenment has its armed muscle collect tribute on the
>>>roads. The government has them set up checkpoints. Government enjoys
>>>making people submit to it in order to travel. Travel was reduced from
>>>a right to a government granted privilege. What's better? Being a
>>>paying customer or subjected to stops and possibly searches by armed
>>>men who's performance reviews depend on how much money they bring in
>>>and/or how many arrests they make?
>
>> Under the current system you are free to leave your home in your car
>> and drive anywhere you want (or you can walk).
>
>It's not cost free, those costs are just hidden to most people. Also
>I've been stopped by cops while walking,biking, and driving. It hasn't
>been free travel for a very long time.
>
I never said it was cost free. So there goes that strawman. I said
you are free to travel.
>> If you think you are
>> subject to "gvt inspection" along they way lets agree, for this
>> discussion, that you are correct. There is nothing about turning all
>> the roads into private ownership in a free market that in any way
>> changes how you would be subject to "gvt inspection" along they way.
>
>I did not mention some insider deal which is usually what passes for
>privization in the USA. Where the government's office holders make a
>sweet deal for their buddies at taxpayer expense.
>
Nor did I mention any insider deal. Another of your strawmen disposed
of.
>> The "control" by the gvt would be/could be exactly the same as it is
>> now, the ONLY difference would be whether you had to PAY for EVERY
>> SPECIFIC use of the roads and/or an access subscription fee. In our
>> current system you do not have to PAY for EVERY SPECIFIC use of the
>> roads except for a very very tiny percentage of toll roads, and
>> certainly not your local collectors and residential roads. But if ALL
>> roads were made private enterprise there is NOTHING (except the gvt of
>> course, but you don't want them involved) to stop the private owners
>> from demanding that you PAY for EVERY SPECIFIC use of the road (or a
>> subscription) in front of your house and charging whatever they wanted
>> for it's use. Even if they sold it to you on a monthly or yearly basis
>> instead of every trip they would still require you to pay them
>> directly and for most roads in residential areas there would be no
>> alternative, you either pay to back out of your driveway or you don't
>> leave.
>
>Where do you think the money for the roads come from now? It's both a
>per-use and time basis built into fuel and property taxes. Just because
>you don't see it doesn't mean you or someone else doesn't pay it.
>
I've never said roads don't cost money. There goes you strawman a
second time.
>> And they could charge anything they want since in your model it's
>> totally free enterprise, the market charges what it wants.
>
>My model? I haven't offered a model.
>
>
So you are not in favor of totally free enterprise?
>> Court rulings now give us the right to use the public roads
>> unfettered for NON-commercial use.
>
>It's long since erroded to "privilege" granted by government. Courts
>have gone along with it.
>
No it hasn't.
>> And there are MANY people who pay
>> no taxes due to their income level but actually get money paid to them
>> every year with the earned income credit. The amount is more then
>> enough to offset the $1000 they spend a year on gas taxes. So there
>> are many people currently using the system for free and who, under a
>> "free market" system could be precluded from even traveling.
>
>And now we get to the root cause of your displeasure... you want to use
>roads that OTHER people pay for. As to certain people not being able to
>travel because of their finances... well there are ways to deal with
>that... but that's neither here nor there for my purpose here.
>
Another strawman by you. I've never made any such claim. I'm merely
pointing out the logical end point of those who make a fetish of the
"free market" and want to apply it to our road system.
>> It's unfortunate that so many libertarians have a one-size-fits-all
>> mentality that they cannot see interrelationships that preclude some
>> particular model working in every instance.
>
>I haven't offered a model. I am only pointing out that government roads
>are not free and to get you to admit as you do above the whole point of
>your excerise is to have other people pay for something you want through
>the political process.
Apparently you are unable to understand the difference between the use
of the term free in an economic sense versus free in the sense of
freedom to use. Perhaps that's why you are always so confused.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
